Assessment of Trabecular Bone During Dental Implant Planning using Cone-beam Computed Tomography with High-resolution Parameters
Lauren Bohner1, 2, *, Pedro Tortamano1, Felix Gremse3, Israel Chilvarquer4, Johannes Kleinheinz2, Marcel Hanisch2
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2021
First Page: 57
Last Page: 63
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-15-57
Article History:Received Date: 24/9/2020
Revision Received Date: 28/12/2020
Acceptance Date: 7/1/2021
Electronic publication date: 16/02/2021
Collection year: 2021
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) with high-resolution parameters may provide an acceptable resolution for bone assessment.
The purpose of this study is to assess trabecular bone using two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices with high-resolution parameters in comparison to micro-computed tomography (µCT).
Bone samples (n=8) were acquired from dry mandibles and scanned by two CBCT devices: 1) VV (Veraview R100, Morita; FOV 4x4, 75kV, 9mA, voxel size 0.125µm); and PR (Prexion 3D, Prexion; FOV 5x5, 90kV, 4mA, 37s, voxel size 108µm). Gold-standard images were acquired using µCT (SkyScan 1272; Bruker; 80kV, 125mA, voxel size 16µm). Morphometric parameters (BvTv- Bone Volume Fraction, BsBv- Trabecular specific surface, TbTh- Trabecular thickness and TbSp- Trabecular separation) were measured. Statistical analysis was performed within ANOVA, Spearman Correlation test and Bland-Altmann plots with a statistical significance level at p=0.05.
CBCT devices showed similar BvTv values in comparison to µCT. No statistical difference was found for BvTv parameters assessed by CBCT devices and µCT. BsBv values were underestimated by CBCT devices (p<0.01), whereas TbTh and TbSp values were overestimated by them (p<0.01). Positive correlations were found between VV and µCT measurements for BvTv (r2= 0.65, p=0.00), such as between PR and µCT measurements for TbSp (r2= 0.50, p=0.04). For BsBv measurements, PR was negatively correlated with µCT (r2= -0.643, p=0.01).
The evaluated CBCT device was able to assess trabecular bone. However, bone parameters were under or overestimated in comparison to µCT.